TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Consolidation of Section 138 NI Act cases permitted, transfer ordered using Section 406 CrPC to avoid conflicting findings</h1> SC held that though the offence under Section 138 NI Act is complete upon dishonour, jurisdictional issues can be addressed under Section 406 CrPC to ... Dishonour of cheques - 7 cheques dishonoured at different places - different jurisdiction of trial court as per the bounced cheque - case of petitioner is that as all the cheques relate to the same transaction, it would be proper and appropriate that the cases pertaining to their dishonour are tried and decided together - HELD THAT:- It is now well settled that the offence under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 is complete upon dishonour of the cheque but prosecution in relation to such offence is postponed, by virtue of the provisos therein, till the failure of the drawer of the cheque to make the payment within 15 days of receiving the demand notice. However, jurisdiction to try this offence remained a troublesome issue for a long time. It may be noted that this Court exercised power under Section 406 Cr.P.C. in relation to offences under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 even during the time the original Section 142 held the field. In A.E. Premanand Vs. Escorts Finance Ltd. & Others, this Court took note of the fact that the offences therein, under Section 138 of the Act of 1881, had arisen out of one single transaction and found it appropriate and in the interest of justice that all such cases should be tried in one Court. In the case on hand, as the six complaint cases pertain to the same transaction, it would be advisable to have a common adjudication to obviate the possibility of contradictory findings being rendered in connection therewith by different Courts. As four of the six cases have been filed by the respondent company before the Dwarka Courts at New Delhi and only two such cases are pending before the Courts at Nagpur, Maharashtra, it would be convenient and in the interest of all concerned, including the parties and their witnesses, that the cases be transferred to the Dwarka Courts at New Delhi. The transfer petitions are allowed. Issues:Transfer of criminal cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to a different jurisdiction for joint trial.Analysis:1. The transfer petitions sought to move complaint cases under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 from Nagpur to New Delhi for a joint trial. The cases involved dishonoured cheques issued for a crusher plant purchase. 2. The jurisdictional issue arose as the cheques were dishonoured in different locations, leading to cases filed in Nagpur and New Delhi. The petitioners argued for joint trial due to the interconnected nature of the transactions. 3. The respondent contended that Section 142 of the Act gives exclusive jurisdiction to the Nagpur Courts for cases related to the first two dishonoured cheques. They relied on legal precedents to support their argument. 4. The Supreme Court referred to previous judgments to clarify the jurisdictional aspects of Section 138 cases. It highlighted the importance of the place of dishonour in determining jurisdiction for trial. 5. The Court emphasized that the offence under Section 138 is complete upon cheque dishonour, but prosecution is delayed. The jurisdictional issue has been a point of contention, leading to the need for legal clarity. 6. Legal precedents like K. Bhaskaran and Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod cases were cited to establish the components of the offence under Section 138 and the significance of the place of cheque dishonour for jurisdiction. 7. The insertion of Section 142(2) in the Act clarified the jurisdictional aspect concerning dishonoured cheques. The Court's jurisdiction is tied to the location of the bank branch where the cheque was presented for collection. 8. The Court further explained that the non obstante clause in Section 142(1) does not override the power of the Court to transfer cases under Section 406 Cr.P.C. for the interest of justice, even in cases under Section 138. 9. Considering the interconnected nature of the cases and to avoid contradictory findings, the Court allowed the transfer of cases from Nagpur to New Delhi for a joint trial, emphasizing the convenience and interest of all parties involved.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
